iSight: Towards expert-AI co-assessment for improved immunohistochemistry staining interpretation

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) provides information on protein expression in tissue sections and is commonly used to support pathology diagnosis and disease triage. While AI models for H\&E-stained slides show promise, their applicability to IHC is limited due to domain-specific variations. Here we introduce HPA10M, a dataset that contains 10,495,672 IHC images from the Human Protein Atlas with comprehensive metadata included, and encompasses 45 normal tissue types and 20 major cancer types. Based on HPA10M, we trained iSight, a multi-task learning framework for automated IHC staining assessment. iSight combines visual features from whole-slide images with tissue metadata through a token-level attention mechanism, simultaneously predicting staining intensity, location, quantity, tissue type, and malignancy status. On held-out data, iSight achieved 85.5\% accuracy for location, 76.6\% for intensity, and 75.7\% for quantity, outperforming fine-tuned foundation models (PLIP, CONCH) by 2.5--10.2\%. In addition, iSight demonstrates well-calibrated predictions with expected calibration errors of 0.0150-0.0408. Furthermore, in a user study with eight pathologists evaluating 200 images from two datasets, iSight outperformed initial pathologist assessments on the held-out HPA dataset (79\% vs 68\% for location, 70\% vs 57\% for intensity, 68\% vs 52\% for quantity). Inter-pathologist agreement also improved after AI assistance in both held-out HPA (Cohen's $κ$ increased from 0.63 to 0.70) and Stanford TMAD datasets (from 0.74 to 0.76), suggesting expert--AI co-assessment can improve IHC interpretation. This work establishes a foundation for AI systems that can improve IHC diagnostic accuracy and highlights the potential for integrating iSight into clinical workflows to enhance the consistency and reliability of IHC assessment.

Seeing Is Believing? A Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models on Visual Illusions and Anomalies

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown remarkable proficiency on general-purpose vision-language benchmarks, reaching or even exceeding human-level performance. However, these evaluations typically rely on standard in-distribution data, leaving the robustness of MLLMs largely unexamined when faced with scenarios that defy common-sense priors. To address this gap, we introduce VIA-Bench, a challenging benchmark designed to probe model performance on visual illusions and anomalies. It includes six core categories: color illusions, motion illusions, gestalt illusions, geometric and spatial illusions, general visual illusions, and visual anomalies. Through careful human-in-the-loop review, we construct over 1K high-quality question-answer pairs that require nuanced visual reasoning. Extensive evaluation of over 20 state-of-the-art MLLMs, including proprietary, open-source, and reasoning-enhanced models, uncovers significant vulnerabilities. Notably, we find that Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning offers negligible robustness, often yielding ``brittle mirages'' where the model's logic collapses under illusory stimuli. Our findings reveal a fundamental divergence between machine and human perception, suggesting that resolving such perceptual bottlenecks is critical for the advancement of artificial general intelligence. The benchmark data and code will be released.

Do VLMs Perceive or Recall? Probing Visual Perception vs. Memory with Classic Visual Illusions

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) often answer classic visual illusions "correctly" on original images, yet persist with the same responses when illusion factors are inverted, even though the visual change is obvious to humans. This raises a fundamental question: do VLMs perceive visual changes or merely recall memorized patterns? While several studies have noted this phenomenon, the underlying causes remain unclear. To move from observations to systematic understanding, this paper introduces VI-Probe, a controllable visual-illusion framework with graded perturbations and matched visual controls (without illusion inducer) that disentangles visually grounded perception from language-driven recall. Unlike prior work that focuses on averaged accuracy, we measure stability and sensitivity using Polarity-Flip Consistency, Template Fixation Index, and an illusion multiplier normalized against matched controls. Experiments across different families reveal that response persistence arises from heterogeneous causes rather than a single mechanism. For instance, GPT-5 exhibits memory override, Claude-Opus-4.1 shows perception-memory competition, while Qwen variants suggest visual-processing limits. Our findings challenge single-cause views and motivate probing-based evaluation that measures both knowledge and sensitivity to controlled visual change. Data and code are available at https://sites.google.com/view/vi-probe/.

PaperSearchQA: Learning to Search and Reason over Scientific Papers with RLVR

Search agents are language models (LMs) that reason and search knowledge bases (or the web) to answer questions; recent methods supervise only the final answer accuracy using reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). Most RLVR search agents tackle general-domain QA, which limits their relevance to technical AI systems in science, engineering, and medicine. In this work we propose training agents to search and reason over scientific papers -- this tests technical question-answering, it is directly relevant to real scientists, and the capabilities will be crucial to future AI Scientist systems. Concretely, we release a search corpus of 16 million biomedical paper abstracts and construct a challenging factoid QA dataset called PaperSearchQA with 60k samples answerable from the corpus, along with benchmarks. We train search agents in this environment to outperform non-RL retrieval baselines; we also perform further quantitative analysis and observe interesting agent behaviors like planning, reasoning, and self-verification. Our corpus, datasets, and benchmarks are usable with the popular Search-R1 codebase for RLVR training and released on https://huggingface.co/collections/jmhb/papersearchqa. Finally, our data creation methods are scalable and easily extendable to other scientific domains.

RadDiff: Describing Differences in Radiology Image Sets with Natural Language

Understanding how two radiology image sets differ is critical for generating clinical insights and for interpreting medical AI systems. We introduce RadDiff, a multimodal agentic system that performs radiologist-style comparative reasoning to describe clinically meaningful differences between paired radiology studies. RadDiff builds on a proposer-ranker framework from VisDiff, and incorporates four innovations inspired by real diagnostic workflows: (1) medical knowledge injection through domain-adapted vision-language models; (2) multimodal reasoning that integrates images with their clinical reports; (3) iterative hypothesis refinement across multiple reasoning rounds; and (4) targeted visual search that localizes and zooms in on salient regions to capture subtle findings. To evaluate RadDiff, we construct RadDiffBench, a challenging benchmark comprising 57 expert-validated radiology study pairs with ground-truth difference descriptions. On RadDiffBench, RadDiff achieves 47% accuracy, and 50% accuracy when guided by ground-truth reports, significantly outperforming the general-domain VisDiff baseline. We further demonstrate RadDiff's versatility across diverse clinical tasks, including COVID-19 phenotype comparison, racial subgroup analysis, and discovery of survival-related imaging features. Together, RadDiff and RadDiffBench provide the first method-and-benchmark foundation for systematically uncovering meaningful differences in radiological data.

Transductive Visual Programming: Evolving Tool Libraries from Experience for Spatial Reasoning

Spatial reasoning in 3D scenes requires precise geometric calculations that challenge vision-language models. Visual programming addresses this by decomposing problems into steps calling specialized tools, yet existing methods rely on either fixed toolsets or speculative tool induction before solving problems, resulting in suboptimal programs and poor utilization of induced tools. We present Transductive Visual Programming (TVP), a novel framework that builds new tools from its own experience rather than speculation. TVP first solves problems using basic tools while accumulating experiential solutions into an Example Library, then abstracts recurring patterns from these programs into reusable higher-level tools for an evolving Tool Library. This allows TVP to tackle new problems with increasingly powerful tools learned from experience. On Omni3D-Bench, TVP achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming GPT-4o by 22% and the previous best visual programming system by 11%. Our transductively learned tools are used 5x more frequently as core program dependency than inductively created ones, demonstrating more effective tool discovery and reuse. The evolved tools also show strong generalization to unseen spatial tasks, achieving superior performance on benchmarks from SpatialScore-Hard collection without any testset-specific modification. Our work establishes experience-driven transductive tool creation as a powerful paradigm for building self-evolving visual programming agents that effectively tackle challenging spatial reasoning tasks. We release our code at https://transductive-visualprogram.github.io/.

AccidentBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Understanding and Reasoning in Vehicle Accidents and Beyond

Rapid advances in multimodal models demand benchmarks that rigorously evaluate understanding and reasoning in safety-critical, dynamic real-world settings. We present AccidentBench, a large-scale benchmark that combines vehicle accident scenarios with Beyond domains, safety-critical settings in air and water that emphasize spatial and temporal reasoning (e.g., navigation, orientation, multi-vehicle motion). The benchmark contains approximately 2000 videos and over 19000 human-annotated question--answer pairs spanning multiple video lengths (short/medium/long) and difficulty levels (easy/medium/hard). Tasks systematically probe core capabilities: temporal, spatial, and intent understanding and reasoning. By unifying accident-centric traffic scenes with broader safety-critical scenarios in air and water, AccidentBench offers a comprehensive, physically grounded testbed for evaluating models under real-world variability. Evaluations of state-of-the-art models (e.g., Gemini-2.5 Pro and GPT-5) show that even the strongest models achieve only about 18% accuracy on the hardest tasks and longest videos, revealing substantial gaps in real-world temporal, spatial, and intent reasoning. AccidentBench is designed to expose these critical gaps and drive the development of multimodal models that are safer, more robust, and better aligned with real-world safety-critical challenges. The code and dataset are available at: https://github.com/SafeRL-Lab/AccidentBench

Can Large Language Models Match the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews?

Systematic reviews (SR), in which experts summarize and analyze evidence across individual studies to provide insights on a specialized topic, are a cornerstone for evidence-based clinical decision-making, research, and policy. Given the exponential growth of scientific articles, there is growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) to automate SR generation. However, the ability of LLMs to critically assess evidence and reason across multiple documents to provide recommendations at the same proficiency as domain experts remains poorly characterized. We therefore ask: Can LLMs match the conclusions of systematic reviews written by clinical experts when given access to the same studies? To explore this question, we present MedEvidence, a benchmark pairing findings from 100 SRs with the studies they are based on. We benchmark 24 LLMs on MedEvidence, including reasoning, non-reasoning, medical specialist, and models across varying sizes (from 7B-700B). Through our systematic evaluation, we find that reasoning does not necessarily improve performance, larger models do not consistently yield greater gains, and knowledge-based fine-tuning degrades accuracy on MedEvidence. Instead, most models exhibit similar behavior: performance tends to degrade as token length increases, their responses show overconfidence, and, contrary to human experts, all models show a lack of scientific skepticism toward low-quality findings. These results suggest that more work is still required before LLMs can reliably match the observations from expert-conducted SRs, even though these systems are already deployed and being used by clinicians. We release our codebase and benchmark to the broader research community to further investigate LLM-based SR systems.

NegVQA: Can Vision Language Models Understand Negation?

Negation is a fundamental linguistic phenomenon that can entirely reverse the meaning of a sentence. As vision language models (VLMs) continue to advance and are deployed in high-stakes applications, assessing their ability to comprehend negation becomes essential. To address this, we introduce NegVQA, a visual question answering (VQA) benchmark consisting of 7,379 two-choice questions covering diverse negation scenarios and image-question distributions. We construct NegVQA by leveraging large language models to generate negated versions of questions from existing VQA datasets. Evaluating 20 state-of-the-art VLMs across seven model families, we find that these models struggle significantly with negation, exhibiting a substantial performance drop compared to their responses to the original questions. Furthermore, we uncover a U-shaped scaling trend, where increasing model size initially degrades performance on NegVQA before leading to improvements. Our benchmark reveals critical gaps in VLMs' negation understanding and offers insights into future VLM development. Project page available at https://yuhui-zh15.github.io/NegVQA/.

Systematic Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models for Surgical Artificial Intelligence

Large Vision-Language Models offer a new paradigm for AI-driven image understanding, enabling models to perform tasks without task-specific training. This flexibility holds particular promise across medicine, where expert-annotated data is scarce. Yet, VLMs' practical utility in intervention-focused domains--especially surgery, where decision-making is subjective and clinical scenarios are variable--remains uncertain. Here, we present a comprehensive analysis of 11 state-of-the-art VLMs across 17 key visual understanding tasks in surgical AI--from anatomy recognition to skill assessment--using 13 datasets spanning laparoscopic, robotic, and open procedures. In our experiments, VLMs demonstrate promising generalizability, at times outperforming supervised models when deployed outside their training setting. In-context learning, incorporating examples during testing, boosted performance up to three-fold, suggesting adaptability as a key strength. Still, tasks requiring spatial or temporal reasoning remained difficult. Beyond surgery, our findings offer insights into VLMs' potential for tackling complex and dynamic scenarios in clinical and broader real-world applications.